Vegas on 32 vs 64 bit XP Pro?

rtbond wrote on 4/16/2006, 6:20 AM

I'm considering running Vegas v6 on a 64-bit, dual core processor (Intel or AMD).

For those currently doing this, are you running the standard 32-bit Windows XP Pro, or Windows XP Pro x64 Edition? I understand there can be some compatability issues with XP Pro x64, but are they likely to impact video editing related applications?

If you are running the the 32-bit OS, does using the 64-bit processor still given you a good bang for your buck, relative to using a 32-bit dual core processor?

Thanks!

---Rob

Comments

JJKizak wrote on 4/16/2006, 9:16 AM

I at first tried to use the 64 bit and was successfull except for the Matrox parhelia video card. Everything else worked fine including SATA 150, SATA 300, Java, AMD X2 4600+ Gigabyte board. So I switched back to XP Pro and everything worked fine. There are still no 64 bit drivers for the Matrox card which enable full operation. Vegas workes in both 64 and 32 bit just fine.

JJK

Tattoo wrote on 4/16/2006, 10:30 PM

Rob,

I haven't attempted it myself, but I did look into this about a year ago when I had the same question. Seems the only limit to using XP Pro x64 is finding the drivers for all of your equipment, with the sound card & video card being the hardest. Sounds like you're building/buying a new system, so you could pick & choose what hardware you get instead of having to match what you already own. Of course, do you really want to pick your hardware just for OS compatability? I'm not sure if the x64 drivers are going to be compatible with Vista, so you may have to wait for Vista drivers to be released or buy new hardware again if you want to jump to that OS when it comes out. I haven't heard of anyone having any significant performance gains from x64 (nothing is optimized for it), so I'm not sure why you'd want to limit your options so much and go through so much pain for minimal tangible benefit. In my book, the "cool factor" just isn't worth it.

There have been plenty of threads on x64. If you Search on "x64" you'll probably find the vast majority and see if anyone's had particular problems or solutions.

Brian

Jayster wrote on 4/17/2006, 3:31 PM

If you buy Asus gear it seems to be all compatible with x64. That's what I did for my new dual-core AMD system. Asus sells motherboards, video cards, DVD burners, etc. (And no, I don't work for Asus!)

If you have an HP scanner, they don't currently have any 64-bit drivers (though you can reportedly share the scanner from another machine using a 3rd party software; http://www.remote-scan.com .)

Canon printers (relatively new ones) have 64-bit drivers. You can still share it off a print server that's 32-bit anyway.

Not a bad idea, keeping as much hardware as possible off your video editing machine, too. Let the older machine do scanning, printing, etc, then share the hardware.

So if you really want to do it, research all the hardware you will be using on the machine to check their drivers. But make sure it's what you really want to do.

Wes C. Attle wrote on 4/18/2006, 5:35 AM

I have been on x64 Server 2003 for a year with Vegas. No problems, but Acid does not work. Audio driver problem.

Like the others said, just make sure their are 64-bit drivers from all your peripherals. Printers and stuff can be hard to find, but newer printers do have x64 drivers finally!

cosmo wrote on 4/18/2006, 8:01 AM

All about drivers. I use WinPro x64 with Vegas no problems. I also use it with Sonar 5(32 and 64) and a ton of other stuff, no problems. I use an ATI card and M-audio Delta sound cards, both with x64 drivers. The system is an AMD X2 4400. Even the WOW(32bit layer) runs non-64bit apps very smoothly. As long as you have decent hardware you'll be fine. And happy.

In my opinion - Win64 is FOR SURE worth whatever headache you might run into, which for me was NONE. I've had no issues at all. And the responsiveness of the x64 OS crushes the 32bit OS. I hate having to boot up the 32bit side of my machine now...

Jayster wrote on 4/18/2006, 10:03 AM

In my opinion - Win64 is FOR SURE worth whatever headache you might run into, which for me was NONE. I've had no issues at all. And the responsiveness of the x64 OS crushes the 32bit OS. I hate having to boot up the 32bit side of my machine now...

I'm not sure I agree. I also have an AMD X2 4400 with the x64 OS. In my experience applications are indeed quick and zippy - but only after they have finally loaded. When I first click the icon to load an app there is a noticeable delay. Especially when loading Internet Explorer (it comes up with a hung UI, then it starts to work normally).

Also, it's not only drivers, but it's also explorer shell extensions that must be 64-bit. If you are used to using WinZip, it'll run but the context menus are gone (because these are shell extensions). There are other, freeware zipping applications that do have a 64-bit compile, though, so this wasn't too hard to overcome. Just something to be aware of...

I'm willing to overlook these nuisances because the online reviews and reports I've seen post data results showing that 32 bit apps actually run a bit faster. And I hope that Vegas will someday have a 64 bit compile. And apparently the 64 bit Windows does a better job of allocating memory address space to 32 bit apps. So far I am quite pleased with the results.

If you want more than just opinion and conjecture on this topic, take a look at the following article:
AMD64 Dev Source

cosmo wrote on 4/20/2006, 7:34 AM

That's weird. I don't have issues like that at all. My only issues are with things requiring drivers. All of my software has been OK. I don't use Winzip so never hit that one.